We have to remember that SpaceX has a long history of rockets blowing up or failing to land and they just kept working at it until they got it right. There is a tendency for politicians and the public not to tolerate failure which tends to steer these projects into a more conservative direction where they go with safer proven technology.
@@zinjanthropus322 , it’s not entirely a failure at least it preserves their strategic goal of maintaining an independent EU launch ability. Their mistake is understandable since at the time that SpaceX really started to come into their prime they were already midway through developing this thing. And meanwhile, the vehicle was set to retire so they didn’t really have any other options. Now that it is done, they can turn their attention and resources into developing reusable technology like the Chinese are busy doing. I suspect in five years from now, everyone will have the same technology and no one will remember those few years that Europe and everyone else was behind. In a way it mirrors a lot like what Tesla is going through now as its competitors are catching up.
@@DaveP-uv1ml because SpaceX shared their patents… No way they could have done it themselves. By the time they have implemented that tech it will be antiquated. SpaceX has a record of near perfect efficiency once the product is past the iterative design phase. The iterative design process is why they’re able to develop technology at a much faster rate than everyone else that gets hung up on possible failures whilst designing their technology. Best of luck with these costly one and dones though. I can’t see there being much of a market for them other than possible military and reconnaissance satellites that will also be 2nd tier. This seems more like a vanity project more than anything.
@@Bushodai , interative design process? What is novel about that, everybody uses it. And patents? How are you going to enforce that? these aren’t companies these are sovereign nations, and they aren’t going to consent to that lawsuit.
@@DaveP-uv1ml in terms of rocket development iterative design is novel. What lawsuit? SpaceX gave it up of their own volition. Only sue origin and ULA play that crappy game. SpaceX didn’t have to though. I’m suggesting that the E.U. Isn’t innovative they are playing catch up and until space becomes a priority and serious changes are made they will always be a step behind.
@@zinjanthropus322SpaceX until now hasn't been able to demonstrate that reusability of the booster makes rocket launches cheaper. Think about it, the rocket can carry less payload per launch, if it needs to save fuel for a soft landing. With the huge cost for every kg deployed to space this is a massive downside. As far as we know right now, reusable rockets are a gimmick that looks cool and is great for marketing, but doesn't offer real advantages.
@@Elusive_Chicken Ariane 62 price per flight €75M = $82M. It can launch 10350 kg to LEO or 4500 kg to GTO. Falcon 9 costs $28M per flight, and they sell it for $69.75M. It can launch 17500 kg to LEO and 5500 kg to GTO both in reusable mode. SpaceX can always undercut Ariane's price. When Starship is operational, then Ariane will get orders just from Europe. Ariane 6 is not even competitive to Falcon 9, it sure won't be anywhere competitive to Starship.Ariane 62 price per flight €75M = $82M. It can launch 10350 kg to LEO or 4500 kg to GTO. Falcon 9 costs $28M per flight, and they sell it for $69.75M. It can launch 17500 kg to LEO and 5500 kg to GTO both in reusable mode. Falcon 9 has the payload capacity and price advantages compared to Ariane 6. SpaceX can always undercut Ariane's price. When Starship is operational, then Ariane will get orders just from Europe. Ariane 6 is not even competitive to Falcon 9, it sure won't be anywhere competitive to Starship.
Ariane 6 does not stand a chance in the free market. It's more than 60% more expensive to launch than Falcon 9 and multiple times more expensive per ton than starship. As a European I am ashamed we are pouring money into this hopelessly outdated Gucci rocket.
We should ditch Ariane 6 fly spacex and use the money saved to develop Ariane 7, preferably developed by a European startup and not a bloated, inefficient French government company like Ariane Espace.
No, we shouldn't. Keep the money in Europe instead of making the richest man on earth richer, sending money to the US instead of investing it in Europe and ensuring that we keep a capability within Europe to launch instead of depending on foreign powers that could start increasing the price or even deny access at some point all together.
@@Hans-gb4mv Both options will make SpaceX money. Also, why would SpaceX deny rides on their rockets? Its a private company which will try to attract customers, not the other way around. I wouldn't worry about that. Them offering rides to a competitor with satellite communication makes it even less probable they would deny them rides as well as significant price hikes. Even with those they still could be cheaper.
@DutchFR1908-rj2jz If you weren't so afraid of moving fast and practicing test-to-failure you'd also have a rocket that wasn't a decade late and outdated.
@@Just_another_Euro_dude welp what do you except when you’re still partaking in the horse trade of Space lol. Even China makes the ESA look like a joke.
Arianne 6 seem more like a politically motivated backup plan. In my opinion, Europe will not achieve its space goals with such a slow cycle rocket. ESA should pay European private enterprises to develop a reusable rocket system, as NASA is doing.
@@r3dpowel796 using your logic, Long March 5 is a copy of Ariane 5. Long March 5 uses Kerosene fuel. Ariane 6 uses Hydrogen fuel. Two entirely different rockets.
@@zinjanthropus322 , I’m in the US and I don’t think even here we should rely totally on SpaceX given the reputation of its CEO. I’m sure fans of that guy will overlook it, but the rest of us can’t do that.
The problem is Musk will have the Starship Enterprise flying and making profits long before Europe catches up with reusability and increased launch cadence
@@bennie1138000 , OK if he produced the starship enterprise, how is he going to fuel it? I guess he’ll have to ask the Europeans if they can spare the tiny bit of antimatter they are producing in the super collider currently the world’s largest source of it, which isn’t even enough to move the thing if it were real.
Space INDEPENDENCE DAY??? This is just a "return to flight". Or "resumption of launch capability". "Independence" implies someone was tyrannically OPPRESSING Europe and artificially preventing the European space industry from making progress. This gap in launch capability is 100% the fault of Europe's own mistakes and failures to innovate and compete, just like it was America's own fault it lost the global market for commercial launches to Europe in the 90s & 2000s. Europe got lazy and complacent with Ariane 5's success and stopped paying attention.
